Why Trump Followers Think Mail-in Ballots Cause Fraud
One of the reasons Trump followers believe mail-in voting leads to fraud just came to my attention when a "the election was stolen" person cited this link: Guide to Mail-In/Absentee Voting in Vermont. He quoted this portion as proof that mail-in voting is anonymous so that no knows that you voted and so you can vote multiple times:
quote:Absentee voting is also anonymous and completely secure.
This person thought that meant you don't include your name with the ballot, that you just indicate how you're voting on the mail-in ballot and drop it off at town hall or in a drop box somewhere.
He didn't read further down where it provided instructions for signing the ballot, and of course the ballot package must have included their name printed somewhere (not on the ballot itself, of course) so that they can look up the signature the person used when they registered. It's who a person votes for that's anonymous, not who voted.
I wonder if this misunderstanding is why so many Trumpists are so sure mail-in ballots are insecure.
Re: Why Trump Followers Think Mail-in Ballots Cause Fraud
Just to follow up with you and nwr, I was hoping we could start by reaching agreement on how the mail-in process actually works, but just like Marc and Faith once they're out of ammunition and it's time to concede the point, they stop discussing it and move on to other arguments. The Gish Gallop has already been employed.
Re: Why Trump Followers Think Mail-in Ballots Cause Fraud
Just a brief update. He's following the creationist playbook. There was another Gish Gallop yesterday. I'm trying to focus on a single point, how the mail-in ballot process actually works. He believes people can vote multiple times with mail-in ballots, and he ignores descriptions of how mail-in voting actually works.
He spends very little time on this, his original point, despite my efforts to return his focus to it. His arguments assume the mail-in voting process can be easily compromised, and those arguments are just all over the place. He somehow jumped completely unprompted into covid issues. We've been to Hitler already (did you know the Nazis were socialists? - I assume he makes this point because if the Nazis were socialists then since of course we all know the Democrats are socialists it means the Democrats must be really bad people - he's apparently taken the word socialist from the name of the Nazi political party, the National Socialists, and concluded the Nazis were socialists).
The strategy seems to be persuasion through inundation, accusation, conspiracy theories and chaos.
You are deluded, but I already attempted providing you rebuttal, and in response you posted links to videos. You're engaging in the exact same practices as the rest of conservative nation that enable them to maintain ideas at odds with reality.
Does your disdain for Trump mean that you label nearly half the people as delusional?
How many people think the election was rigged? Recent reports say around 30%. That's the minimum for how many people are delusional.
How many people think Democrats are socialists? 64% of Republicans. They're delusional, and they likely don't know the definition of socialism.
The mental phenomenon in operation is confirmation bias. Many conservative minds these days seek out and accept tales that confirm what they want to believe or already believe, not what is true. They seek out tales, not facts or data or evidence. What captures their attention is stuff that confirms their beliefs, not stuff that is true.
If I posted made-up stuff about rigged elections and about Democratic advocacy of socialism and about the collapse of the American dollar and American power or about taxing immigrants or about the ether or about the mind not being part of the physical world, then in no time people like you and marc9000 and LamarkNewAge and Michael MD and Christian7 would be quoting those in your particular interest area as if they were fact. This is because none of you have the ability to tell truth from falsity. The criteria you use to judge an idea or tale true or false is whether it appeals to you, not whether there's any actual truth to it.
The service on our national debt of around $300 billion is around 9% of revenue.
300 billion? That can't be right. As I recall it's in the trillions -- like 20 or so?
Not my clearest writing. The phrase "of around $300 billion" was intended as a modifier of "service", not of "our national debt." And the interest on our national debt is not $300 billion. See Message 107 in the Phat Unplugged thread where a parallel discussion took place for a correction.
The national debt is currently in the $29 trillion vicinity.
...I promise I'll be gone from this forum forever...
That's not the sentiment I was expressing and not the way I feel. I mentioned your name in a list of people (Phat, LamarkNewAge, Michael MD, Christian7 and you) who judge ideas based on whether they find them appealing and not on whether they're rooted in fact.
True socialists might also consider nationalizing transportation, telecommunications, higher education, the banking industry, and the equity markets.
I don't understand how Marc can quote accurate definitions of socialism (Message 31) and still not get it. His own definitions clearly describe how socialism advocates government ownership of the means of production and so forth, but he somehow believes that describes Democrats. The argument is so daft that he can only be a troll, though of the "sincerely believes what he says" variety, if there is such a thing.
Is a rational discussion possible with some people?
The saying that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting something different to happen is cute and appealing, but untrue. People aren't, life isn't, that simple. But I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't expect rationality to suddenly erupt from what has heretofore been a swamp of determined ignorance and nonsense.
But many times an important point is at stake, and at other times the stupid is just too precious to resist, and so we eagerly reply despite knowing it will go nowhere, and we excuse our behavior by telling ourselves it's for the lurkers or for posterity or just for the principle of truth and honesty. So even though the stupid persists unabated, we feel better.
As the op-ed piece says, for Republicans there are only two possible outcomes:
The Republican candidate wins.
The Democrat candidate steals the election.
A large proportion of Republican candidates for office and their senior campaign officials and advisers do not care about truth and honesty and integrity. They only care about power. Cynical accusations of cheating and fraud aren't so much about winning court cases but about poisoning the public's mind about future elections.
Even Chris Christie, a former New Jersey governor who worked on Trump's 2016 campaign but who discounted all charges of election fraud in 2020 has apparently changed sides and now believes that Democrats win elections by cheating, saying, "there’s a very legitimate chance Jack could win this" and that he's concerned about "data discrepancies." What "data discrepancies?" Who knows, he doesn't say.
And he doesn't say because he doesn't know because there were no "data discrepancies." He's doing what in the old days we quaintly called lying and making things up but today is just the status quo for too many Republican politicians. They've found an effective formula for driving Democrats out of having a meaningful role in governing, and they're going to pound it over and over and over again. Republicans who recognize the formula for what it is and won't play along are leaving government, like Representatives Anthony Gonzales and Adam Kinzinger. And how long can Liz Cheney hold on?
Rupert Murdoch's New York Post claimed there were "“vote-counting debacles plaguing several counties.” What "debacles?" What counties? What exactly happened? Well, stuff did happen, but nothing significant. A poll worker made a mistake in Essex Country that required a court's permission for the machines of 56 precincts to be opened and their votes tallied manually. New voting machines in Middlesex County crashed and had to be rebooted. No votes were lost, no fraud was detected. Ciattarelli lost to Murphy by 65,242 votes. If he's lucky a recount might find him a couple hundred more votes, but if history is any guide he'll lose a couple hundred, because for some unknown reason recent recounts usually end up with the Republican having fewer votes than he started with.
Our history of free and fair elections continues, but a significant proportion of the country believes our elections are no longer free and fair because they think despicable Democrats are working behind the scenes to steal elections. How are Democrats doing this? Somehow they're even doing this in red states where the election machinery is all run by Republicans, as in Georgia of the beleaguered Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger who refused to cave in to demands, even in a phone call from President Trump himself, that he declare his state's election corrupt.
Nobody can say how these elections are being stolen because nobody knows. So far only isolated instances of fraud have been identified, I'd guess around a hundred nationwide for the 2020 presidential election, and usually the culprits were individuals working on their own who voted Republican.
Sadly, the Republican formula is working. Democrats are going to lose the House and Senate in 2022 and the presidency in 2024, and they'll be out of power for a long, long time. The two party system was working well enough until around 20 years ago with the rise of the Tea Party. In the time since government has become more and more polarized and acrimonious, and now through a combination of new and restrictive voting laws and new gerrymandering we're entering an era of largely one party rule.